pootriarch (e)k BonPote(r)en Tout comprendre (ou presque) sur le climat liburuaren kritika egin du
A big step backward for an important effort
izar 1
The idea of a comic-book style explainer for global warming makes a ton of sense, so much so that I stayed with this far longer than I normally would given my darkening opinion. Ultimately I find it counterproductive.
The goal: Use lots of graphics to illustrate the interconnections among climate, human activity, and the planet. The opening chapter says, listen to science, follow the proof. But there's no proof here. GIEC (the French acronym for the UN's IPCC climate-change panel) is mentioned only four times — maybe I missed one — and I say mentioned rather than cited because we get a sentence, or a paraphrased paragraph, that is attributed to them but without any information that would allow it to be found in source material.
There's a lot of copy between the graphics, with key phrases highlighted. But fully half the words are highlighted, making the emphasis lose its …
The idea of a comic-book style explainer for global warming makes a ton of sense, so much so that I stayed with this far longer than I normally would given my darkening opinion. Ultimately I find it counterproductive.
The goal: Use lots of graphics to illustrate the interconnections among climate, human activity, and the planet. The opening chapter says, listen to science, follow the proof. But there's no proof here. GIEC (the French acronym for the UN's IPCC climate-change panel) is mentioned only four times — maybe I missed one — and I say mentioned rather than cited because we get a sentence, or a paraphrased paragraph, that is attributed to them but without any information that would allow it to be found in source material.
There's a lot of copy between the graphics, with key phrases highlighted. But fully half the words are highlighted, making the emphasis lose its emphasis. By the end it was just tiring trying to read the words as they shifted from white to blue to yellow.
It's sprinkled liberally with debunks of 'fake news' and 'disinformation' from 'climate deniers', even name-dropping a few. But we're not given information that's demonstrably authoritative. There are absolutely no endnotes. There is only a list of scientists who provided the information for each chapter, with no reference even to works they've authored.
This might have worked better in 2022 when it came out. In 2026, it reads exactly like what those climate deniers are putting out: polemics whose facts can't be verified. I personally don't need that verification; I believe what this book has to say. But I see its lack of rigor as undermining an important message.